Trump Effort To Roll Back Worker Protections Knocked Down In Court

[Nickyjo]

Fair enough. McDonalds did get dinged some years ago about their boiling coffee burning someone.

 

[Questerr]

The single largest form of theft in America is wage theft by employers. But of course, because this form of theft benefits the rich, our legal system doesn’t recognize it as a crime punishable by prison time.

 

[pamak]

And again, you keep lapsing into a discussion of temp worker arrangements, which aren't what we're talking about. Those were covered under the old and new rule.

Let me help define (again) the frivolous lawsuits in this case. We're talking about workers (really lawyers seeking to profit off the workers) suing a company which doesn't employ workers for paying them incorrectly - because they contract with the employer - in an attempt to squeeze out a settlement to avoid litigation costs.

The last paragraph, again, lapses into the irrelevant. There's a difference between setting standards for the work of a contractor and being responsible for that contractor's payroll obligations. For example, I can insist that the people who mow my lawn mow it diagonally and they'll probably do it. (At least while I'm watching). I do also ask them to edge around the flower bed, and blow the leaves off the porch. That doesn't mean I'm responsible for paying the individual employees. I contract with the company, and pay the company. That company is responsible for paying the individual workers.

Every time a large corporation is shielded by a claim of that it is not (or should not be) responsible for X, or Y, I say that the government can choose to hold them responsible for certain things in exchange of the advantage that the same government offer to corporations.

The larger picture is that big companies like McDonalds are too powerful and squeeze the small business owners who have to compete against the corporations' economies of scale or join their business model through a franchise.

If one REALLY believes in helping people, then the deal should be very simple: From the moment corporations have legal advantages like limited liability which helps them do things like raising capital and avoid paying penalties when things go wrong, they should be aware that the cost for such priviledges (offerd by the government) does not come for free and that some measures of accountability which help bridging the advantage gap between big and small businesses would apply. If they do not like it, they are free to forfeit their corporate status..

 

[JasperL]

And again, you keep lapsing into a discussion of temp worker arrangements, which aren't what we're talking about. Those were covered under the old and new rule.

I didn't mention temp worker arrangements. Using staffing agencies goes WAY beyond temp workers.

Let me help define (again) the frivolous lawsuits in this case. We're talking about workers (really lawyers seeking to profit off the workers) suing a company which doesn't employ workers for paying them incorrectly - because they contract with the employer - in an attempt to squeeze out a settlement to avoid litigation costs.

They're not frivolous the the workers who got screwed.

The last paragraph, again, lapses into the irrelevant. There's a difference between setting standards for the work of a contractor and being responsible for that contractor's payroll obligations. For example, I can insist that the people who mow my lawn mow it diagonally and they'll probably do it. (At least while I'm watching). I do also ask them to edge around the flower bed, and blow the leaves off the porch. That doesn't mean I'm responsible for paying the individual employees. I contract with the company, and pay the company. That company is responsible for paying the individual workers.

The paragraph is only irrelevant if you don't read the opinion, or care what the rules the Trump administration promulgated. That appears to be the case with you. Those examples were from the opinion, discussing the Trump regulations, and the incredibly high bar set to establish that an employer has "control." And you're gaslighting here. You know damn well that if Amazon "suggests" something to the staffing agency, it's functionally an order, and mandatory. So what employees have to prove is just that. Well, how ****ing stupid would Amazon have to be to put themselves on the hook for damages to make their suggestions in the form of an order? Mandatory? So it just raises the burden for the lowly workers, but is great news for the globalist elites, whose ass Trump was kissing here.

MAGA!!

 

[dcsports]

Every time a large corporation is shielded by a claim of that it is not (or should not be) responsible for X, or Y, I say that the government can choose to hold them responsible for certain things in exchange of the advantage that the same government offer to corporations.

The larger picture is that big companies like McDonalds are too powerful and squeeze the small business owners who have to compete against the corporations' economies of scale or join their business model through a franchise.

If one REALLY believes in helping people, then the deal should be very simple: From the moment corporations have legal advantages like limited liability which helps them do things like raising capital and avoid paying penalties when things go wrong, they should be aware that the cost for such priviledges (offerd by the government) does not come for free and that some measures of accountability which help bridging the advantage gap between big and small businesses would apply. If they do not like it, they are free to forfeit their corporate status..

This isn't really about limiting liability - it's two separate companies. It's about limiting abuse of our legal system.

 

[dcsports]

I didn't mention temp worker arrangements. Using staffing agencies goes WAY beyond temp workers.

Good grief. Yes you did. But OK. STAFFING agencies is not what we're talking about.

They're not frivolous the the workers who got screwed.

That's the glib answer, but I think you're familiar with the concept.

The paragraph is only irrelevant if you don't read the opinion, or care what the rules the Trump administration promulgated. That appears to be the case with you. Those examples were from the opinion, discussing the Trump regulations, and the incredibly high bar set to establish that an employer has "control." And you're gaslighting here. You know damn well that if Amazon "suggests" something to the staffing agency, it's functionally an order, and mandatory. So what employees have to prove is just that. Well, how ****ing stupid would Amazon have to be to put themselves on the hook for damages to make their suggestions in the form of an order? Mandatory? So it just raises the burden for the lowly workers, but is great news for the globalist elites, whose ass Trump was kissing here.

MAGA!!

It's irrelevant because it's not relevant to the discussion. It's not about 'helping people' - it's about limiting the opportunity for excessive litigation. You keep going into an arrangement which would be covered under the Obama rule or the Trump rule.

 

[dixon01767]

Maybe NcDonalds should require its franchisees to adhere to labor laws as a condition of keeping the franchise.

They do. Spelled out in the franchise agreement that they adhere to all such employment laws.

 

[dixon01767]

The paragraph is only irrelevant if you don't read the opinion, or care what the rules the Trump administration promulgated. That appears to be the case with you. Those examples were from the opinion, discussing the Trump regulations, and the incredibly high bar set to establish that an employer has "control."

It only seems high when your so called "employer" has no control whatsoever over his own so called employees, such as when corporate McDonalds is simply the franchisees supplier and has no control over the terms of employment between that franchisee and their employees.

They're not frivolous the the workers who got screwed.

Do you have even one example of an employee of a Mcdonalds Franchisee who wasn't able to enforce the Fair labor Standards act against the franchisee?

 

[JasperL]

Good grief. Yes you did. But OK. STAFFING agencies is not what we're talking about.

Why not? Do the Trump rules exempt staffing agencies?

That's the glib answer, but I think you're familiar with the concept.

What's "glib" is dismissing worker lawsuits as frivolous. Do you think Amazon et al. can't afford lawyers to represent their interests? You have 10 or 50 workers versus Amazon - who's got the power there? It's not the workers, and the rule raises the bar they have to clear by a massive amount to win in court, and you're calling those lawsuits "frivolous." Based on what?

It's irrelevant because it's not relevant to the discussion. It's not about 'helping people' - it's about limiting the opportunity for excessive litigation. You keep going into an arrangement which would be covered under the Obama rule or the Trump rule.

That's false. From the opinion: State Of New York et al v. Scalia, Docket No. 1:20-cv-01689 (S.D.N.Y. Feb 26, 2020), Court Docket

Indirect control can be sufficient for joint employer status. “[T]he potential joint employer”
exercises indirect control “through mandatory directions to another employer that directly controls
the employee.” Id. § 791(a)(3)(ii). But these directions must be mandatory. So if “the direct
employer[] voluntar[il]y deci[des] to grant the potential joint employer’s request, recommendation, or
suggestion[,]” that “does not constitute indirect control[.]” Id. And “[a]cts that incidentally impact
the employee also do not indicate joint employer status.” Id

So let's say the top employer - e.g. Amazon - hires an agency to staff its security. And Amazon says, "it sure would be nice if they made 5 rounds per hour and not the 3 they're doing now!" That's not control, even if the agency increases rounds per hour to 5 because it's just a helpful suggestion and Amazon wasn't stupid enough to make the suggestion "mandatory."

Amazon's contract says it CAN absolutely direct the staffing agency, Amazon CAN make all kinds of demands about work flow, etc. and even send over a 40 point list of "suggestions" for those employees, but if they don't make those points mandatory, Amazon doesn't exert "control" and therefore cannot be determined a joint employer.

 

[bongsaway]

poor donald, another loss in the courts. You go Mr. Law and order.

 

[dcsports]

Why not? Do the Trump rules exempt staffing agencies?

As reported earlier in this thread, the new test looked to whether the larger company exhibited control over hiring, firing, and pay. So filling a position at an Amazon company with someone from a staffing company would apply.

What's "glib" is dismissing worker lawsuits as frivolous. Do you think Amazon et al. can't afford lawyers to represent their interests? You have 10 or 50 workers versus Amazon - who's got the power there? It's not the workers, and the rule raises the bar they have to clear by a massive amount to win in court, and you're calling those lawsuits "frivolous." Based on what?

They are frivolous because the company being sued isn't responsible for their payroll. Amazon can afford to hire representation, but they shouldn't have to. The objective of including them is to squeeze out a settlement, as it's cheaper to pay than fight it. Again, these aren't Amazon's workers.

That's false. From the opinion: State Of New York et al v. Scalia, Docket No. 1:20-cv-01689 (S.D.N.Y. Feb 26, 2020), Court Docket



So let's say the top employer - e.g. Amazon - hires an agency to staff its security. And Amazon says, "it sure would be nice if they made 5 rounds per hour and not the 3 they're doing now!" That's not control, even if the agency increases rounds per hour to 5 because it's just a helpful suggestion and Amazon wasn't stupid enough to make the suggestion "mandatory."

Amazon's contract says it CAN absolutely direct the staffing agency, Amazon CAN make all kinds of demands about work flow, etc. and even send over a 40 point list of "suggestions" for those employees, but if they don't make those points mandatory, Amazon doesn't exert "control" and therefore cannot be determined a joint employer.

Again, you are flipping to different examples. Amazon setting standards for a company contracted to provide security is not the same as them exercising control over the individual worker's pay.

 

[JasperL]

It only seems high when your so called "employer" has no control whatsoever over his own so called employees, such as when corporate McDonalds is simply the franchisees supplier and has no control over the terms of employment between that franchisee and their employees.

I don't know why you guys are so fixated on McDonalds and franchises. And if you know anything about franchises, you know that the franchisor, e.g. McDonald's corporate, does a helluva lot more than supply french fries and napkins. And if they have or had "no control" they'd never be a 'joint employer.'

Do you have even one example of an employee of a Mcdonalds Franchisee who wasn't able to enforce the Fair labor Standards act against the franchisee?

That's a weird place to move the goal posts. If McDonalds corporate wasn't ever put on the hook for franchisee violations, why do you think they pushed for the Trump rules? For fun, even though in their entire history they'd never been determined a joint employer and had to pay damages, but maybe they might be at some point?

 

[JasperL]

As reported earlier in this thread, the new test looked to whether the larger company exhibited control over hiring, firing, and pay. So filling a position at an Amazon company with someone from a staffing company would apply.

Why? Does Amazon say - you must hire Joe and his salary will be $11.34/hour? Of course not - the entire point of using an agency is so the agency and not Amazon deals with those details. Amazon might say, we'll pay you, the agency, $120,000 per week to cover these duties, and how the agency divides that up among the staff is up to them. And if Amazon doesn't ever direct the staffing agency to fire someone, but suggests it, they don't exert control.

They are frivolous because the company being sued isn't responsible for their payroll. Amazon can afford to hire representation, but they shouldn't have to. The objective of including them is to squeeze out a settlement, as it's cheaper to pay than fight it. Again, these aren't Amazon's workers.

Wait, you just said above they are the joint employer since Amazon directs hiring, firing and/or pay and would be covered under an agency agreement. They aren't Amazon's workers, but those hired and fired and pay established by the employment agency. Pick a side! At least don't contradict yourself in the same post.

Again, you are flipping to different examples. Amazon setting standards for a company contracted to provide security is not the same as them exercising control over the individual worker's pay.

It's not just about control over pay. If you read the opinion or knew anything about the standards, you'd know this. If you did read the opinion, then why are you lying about the standards? Pay is just one of several ways a top employer can exert 'control' over indirect employees, and directing work flow would absolutely qualify.

If Amazon can say, "we want workers who meet X requirements, and do the job as we direct, and here's a 40 point list, and they are mandatory," then they are the joint employer. What you're suggesting is form over substance, and if you just insert an employment agency between Amazon and the worker, then they absolve themselves of liability because Amazon doesn't directly do anything - they just write a contract with very specific terms that does the same thing as if Amazon did hire them directly. You seem to concede that is a joint employer arrangement under any interpretation. The question is where control is established absent that 40 point list of contractual, mandatory requirements. Trump says if Amazon "suggests" those 40 points but doesn't make them mandatory, there is no control!!

 

[Nickyjo]

They do. Spelled out in the franchise agreement that they adhere to all such employment laws.

Do you know if McDonalds monitors compliance in any way? Obviously (I assume) they couldn’t keep an eye on every franchisee, but reviews of some might make others more likely to comply.

 

[dcsports]

Why? Does Amazon say - you must hire Joe and his salary will be $11.34/hour? Of course not - the entire point of using an agency is so the agency and not Amazon deals with those details. Amazon might say, we'll pay you, the agency, $120,000 per week to cover these duties, and how the agency divides that up among the staff is up to them. And if Amazon doesn't ever direct the staffing agency to fire someone, but suggests it, they don't exert control.

Wow. Again, you keep switching back and forth between different types of employment. If Amazon hires a security company for $120,000 per week to provide 24/7 onsite security for a building, then it's a contractor - they pay the company to provide employees, and probably have no control over those aspects. (Other than they could certainly say something like 'Fred was sleeping in the breakroom and we don't ever want to see him again).

If they need someone to staff, say, onsite server support, where they interview and approve the person, approve a contract rate for the role, etc., then they do have quite a bit of control.

Wait, you just said above they are the joint employer since Amazon directs hiring, firing and/or pay and would be covered under an agency agreement. They aren't Amazon's workers, but those hired and fired and pay established by the employment agency. Pick a side! At least don't contradict yourself in the same post.

Again, YOU keep switching around. The rule is intended to limit the frivolous lawsuits under agency and outsourcing arrangements.

It's not just about control over pay. If you read the opinion or knew anything about the standards, you'd know this. If you did read the opinion, then why are you lying about the standards? Pay is just one of several ways a top employer can exert 'control' over indirect employees, and directing work flow would absolutely qualify.

If Amazon can say, "we want workers who meet X requirements, and do the job as we direct, and here's a 40 point list, and they are mandatory," then they are the joint employer. What you're suggesting is form over substance, and if you just insert an employment agency between Amazon and the worker, then they absolve themselves of liability because Amazon doesn't directly do anything - they just write a contract with very specific terms that does the same thing as if Amazon did hire them directly. You seem to concede that is a joint employer arrangement under any interpretation. The question is where control is established absent that 40 point list of contractual, mandatory requirements. Trump says if Amazon "suggests" those 40 points but doesn't make them mandatory, there is no control!!

'joint employment' isn't covered by one regulation, law, or even agency. It depends on what you are talking about. In this case, we're talking about payroll disputes. If Bob, who owns a McDonald's franchise, doesn't pay employees for overtime, he and his company are responsible.

 

[JasperL]

Wow. Again, you keep switching back and forth between different types of employment. If Amazon hires a security company for $120,000 per week to provide 24/7 onsite security for a building, then it's a contractor - they pay the company to provide employees, and probably have no control over those aspects. (Other than they could certainly say something like 'Fred was sleeping in the breakroom and we don't ever want to see him again).

This has nothing to do with "probably." If they have "no" control, they're not a joint employer. If they send over a 40 point list of job requirements, and they're 'suggestions' but not 'mandatory' Trump says no control. We all know that's bull****. If they 'suggest' something, it's a demand to that security company. And if they control the job, they are a joint employer.

If they need someone to staff, say, onsite server support, where they interview and approve the person, approve a contract rate for the role, etc., then they do have quite a bit of control.

Of course.

Again, YOU keep switching around. The rule is intended to limit the frivolous lawsuits under agency and outsourcing arrangements.

"Frivolous lawsuits" is a nothing term. It's intended to insulate the global elites from damages suffered by employees doing work for them, so long as the global elites insert a go-between staffing agency between the global behemoths and the employee. So if the agency ****s those workers with a rusty farm implement, Amazon is actually quite fine with that because they're not on the hook for damages.

These rules came about, as you know since you read the opinion, with child labor laws. The Amazon equivalent was just fine with kids working, but they didn't want to hire them directly, so hired through third parties who hired kids. So the rules, the statute, is VERY broad by intent so that employers cannot get away with insulating themselves when the employees are effectively under their 'control.'

'joint employment' isn't covered by one regulation, law, or even agency. It depends on what you are talking about. In this case, we're talking about payroll disputes. If Bob, who owns a McDonald's franchise, doesn't pay employees for overtime, he and his company are responsible.

You're moving the goal posts. Whether McD corporate is on the hook for that wage theft depends on 'control' and that test is much broader than McD control over PAY. I quoted from the opinion, which quoted the Trump rules. You're just ignoring all that to give your baseless opinions and defend Trump writing regs intended to make it FAR harder for regular employees to sue and get damages from the global elites. MAGA!!

 

[dcsports]

This has nothing to do with "probably." If they have "no" control, they're not a joint employer. If they send over a 40 point list of job requirements, and they're 'suggestions' but not 'mandatory' Trump says no control. We all know that's bull****. If they 'suggest' something, it's a demand to that security company. And if they control the job, they are a joint employer.



Of course.



"Frivolous lawsuits" is a nothing term. It's intended to insulate the global elites from damages suffered by employees doing work for them, so long as the global elites insert a go-between staffing agency between the global behemoths and the employee. So if the agency ****s those workers with a rusty farm implement, Amazon is actually quite fine with that because they're not on the hook for damages.

These rules came about, as you know since you read the opinion, with child labor laws. The Amazon equivalent was just fine with kids working, but they didn't want to hire them directly, so hired through third parties who hired kids. So the rules, the statute, is VERY broad by intent so that employers cannot get away with insulating themselves when the employees are effectively under their 'control.'



You're moving the goal posts. Whether McD corporate is on the hook for that wage theft depends on 'control' and that test is much broader than McD control over PAY. I quoted from the opinion, which quoted the Trump rules. You're just ignoring all that to give your baseless opinions and defend Trump writing regs intended to make it FAR harder for regular employees to sue and get damages from the global elites. MAGA!!

Honestly, I'm ready to move on. You are talking about moving goalposts? Seriously? You've been all over the map on this, switching up types of employment, contractual arrangements, and issues - and basically ignoring the original issue. Every time I try to focus us in, you step another direction.

Thank you for the spirited discussion. Take care.

 

[pamak]

This isn't really about limiting liability - it's two separate companies. It's about limiting abuse of our legal system.

Nope!

It is about making a deal with corporations in exchange of the benefit of the limited liability they have. No government or society is forced to offer such legal protection and no society is obliged to tolerate big corporations making tons of money and when they screw up getting the society's legal protection. So, at any point, the society can decide to change the price for those who want to get the corporate laws' protection. The price can be anything, In this case, it can be making them share responsibility with those who copy the McDonalds work model. In Germany, they force big corporations to accept to have about half of the board of directors being under the control of union worker representatives. When the gap between the veryyy big and successful corporations and the rest keeps getting increasing, then I have no problem with imposing artificial breaks to that system because the results show that the real abuse comes from the existing laws. And again, this is not about forcing people become corporations. Everybody is free to refuse to do business as a corporation.

 

[dcsports]

Nope!

It is about making a deal with corporations in exchange of the benefit of the limited liability they have. No government or society is forced to offer such legal protection and no society is obliged to tolerate big corporations making tons of money and when they screw up getting the society's legal protection. So, at any point, the society can decide to change the price for those who want to get the corporate laws' protection. The price can be anything, In this case, it can be making them share responsibility with those who copy the McDonalds work model. In Germany, they force big corporations to accept to have about half of the board of directors being under the control of union worker representatives. When the gap between the veryyy big and successful corporations and the rest keeps getting increasing, then I have no problem with imposing artificial breaks to that system because the results show that the real abuse comes from the existing laws. And again, this is not about forcing people become corporations. Everybody is free to refuse to do business as a corporation.

I think you're going off the rails a bit onto the subject of corporate responsibility. This is about making one company responsible for the payroll decisions of another.

 

[pamak]

I think you're going off the rails a bit onto the subject of corporate responsibility. This is about making one company responsible for the payroll decisions of another.

Our difference is that I see the big picture of how a govenrment and society can make decisions. And yes, the government can make a corporation partially (nt fully) responsible for stupid decisions by other people who use the corpoate brand and business model so that it can force the big corporations to audit also the payroll practices of those who use its brand as they do with the other business related practices. In short, the government can use the innovation and big corporate resources in the private sector to self-monitor the payroll practices because the big corporations will know that they will be liable to penalties if soe of their partners make a stupid decision of short-changing their employees.

 

[dixon01767]

That's a weird place to move the goal posts. If McDonalds corporate wasn't ever put on the hook for franchisee violations, why do you think they pushed for the Trump rules?

Because defense of even frivolous lawsuits can be expensive.

 

[JasperL]

Because defense of even frivolous lawsuits can be expensive.

Yes, "frivolous lawsuits" are those where workers get screwed and the big boys have to pay damages. So sad... :boohoo:

It's good to see the Trump fans defending the global elites and their ability to **** over the little guys! MAGA!!

 

[JasperL]

I think you're going off the rails a bit onto the subject of corporate responsibility. This is about making one company responsible for the payroll decisions of another.

If that's the builder, or Amazon, or CVS, or whoever, that's a good thing in fact. When Amazon or a builder (say, Trump) is on the hook for payroll abuses by those it hires, they have an interest in hiring agencies or contractors or subs that don't **** over their workers. Insulating them makes it in Amazon's interests to hire agencies that short pay, overtime, etc. because that allows for lower contract bids, and less cost for Amazon, and higher profits every time those in the vertical chain **** their workers over.

So the Trump rules are really, really good for the worst employers. We go back to child labor. The big boys didn't want to hire child labor, but could have their cake and eat it too by hiring subs or contractors who gladly did, and then passed the savings up the line. Trump's rules make it easier for the equivalent to happen in the modern era. It's really that simple. He's helping out the worst employers.

 

[dcsports]

Yes, "frivolous lawsuits" are those where workers get screwed and the big boys have to pay damages. So sad... :boohoo:

No. Frivolous because they weren't responsible, but were sued to press for a settlement to avoid litigation expenses.

 

[JasperL]

No. Frivolous because they weren't responsible, but were sued to press for a settlement to avoid litigation expenses.

They're not frivolous to the workers who were screwed. You don't care about them - just the global elites. MAGA!